- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
There is no cookie nightmare, there are only a bunch creepy advertisers who are trying to hide their creepiness behind a fig leaf of annoying “consent” forms.
Not just a bunch… whenever I go through the list of partners it’s like 1000-15000 partners that want my information, in order to let me read a recipe on how to cook noodles
And let’s be honest: Just doing a data protection audit at those 1000-15000 partners would enhance privacy for everyone. Those companies are shady as fuck
“We’re getting rid of the cookie banners” and “removing overly rigid regulation” is apparently how this massive proposal is being framed now, but what it chiefly does is—of course—benefit giant corporations, do little if anything for smaller companies, and fuck over people’s privacy.
Yep. They are removing the banners because there is no obligation to protect peoples data anymore. From now on all privacy invasion is just legal by default.
And, most importantly, it’s about so much more than just the banners. For example:
(1) A new GDPR loophole via “pseudonyms” or “IDs”. The Commission proposes to significantly narrow the definition of “personal data” – which would result in the GDPR not applying to many companies in various sectors. For example, sectors that currently operate via “pseudonyms” or random ID numbers, such as data brokers or the advertising industry, would not be (fully) covered anymore. This would done by adding a “subjective approach” in the text of the GDPR.
Instead of having an objective definition of personal data (e.g. data that is linked to a directly or indirectly identifiable person), a subjective definition would mean that if a specific company claims that it cannot (yet) or does not aim to (currently) identify a person, the GDPR ceases to apply. Such a case-by-case decision is inherently more complex and everything but a “simplification”. It also means that data may be “personal” or not depending on the internal thinking of a company, or given the circumstances that they have at a current point. This can also make cooperation between companies more complex as some would fall under the GDPR and others not.
(2) Pulling personal data from your device? So far, Article 5(3) ePrivacy has protected users against remote access of data stored on “terminal equipment”, such as PCs or smartphones. This is based on the right to protection of communications under Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and made sure that companies cannot “remotely search” devices.
The Commission now adds “white listed” processing operations for the access to terminal equipment, that would include “aggregated statistics” and “security purposes”. While the general direction of changes is understandable, the wording is extremely permissive and would also allow excessive “searches” on user devices for (tiny) security purposes.
(3) AI Training of Meta or Google with EU’s Personal Data? When Meta or LinkedIn started using social media data, it was widely unpopular. In a recent study for example only 7% of Germans say that they want Meta to use their personal data to train AI. Nevertheless, the Commission now wants to allow the use of highly personal data (like the content of 15+ years of a social media profile) for AI training by Big Tech.
Of course, the Verge is staning for tech bros collecting and selling our data
Anyone else remember 2019 through 2024, when Google promised they were going to “phase out” third-party cookies in Chrome? No? Perhaps nobody believed them to begin with.
This article leaves out that the same proposal would completely undermine the GDPR, massively reducing data protection and selling out EU citizen’s data to big tech.
I‘d love to have a browser based cookie solution. They should have implemented it like that in the first place. But not at the cost of my privacy and the ownership over my data.
For now this is just a proposal by the commission, so it has a long way to go before becoming law. But it‘s really exhausting having to fight those ridiculous ideas time and time again.
How is it a nightmare that I’m allowed to say “I’m not consenting to this shit”?!
Now they’re planning to revoke that right. Nightmare gone?
